Gay Groups’ Silence on eHarmony Lawsuit
Shortly, after posting my piece on failure of gay groups to engage in any introspection following the passage of Proposition 8 and their silence on the eHarmony suit, I received an e-mail which cheered me somewhat about the direction of these organizations.
A reader close to one of the groups e-mailed me and said that some of the groups were worried about the legal precedent this could establish, fearful it could lead to straight people suing for access to gay sites. That is why they maintained “radio silence” on the settlement.
While I am troubled by the silence of the groups, I am heartened that at least this one group was concerned about the implications of so using non-discrimination laws. Its leaders at least have some notion of the concept of freedom.
Wish they would use that word more readily in discussing gay issues.
So, their silence, while not ideal, is at least a step in the right direction.
15 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
My sister set me up with my wife, and she’s set up other (straight) couples too. She takes a lot of pride in her matchmaking skills. But is it only a matter of time before someone sues her for only setting up her straight friends. (Not that my sister or I have a ton of non-straight friends.)
All joking aside, this really goes to the heart of why I think a lot of decent straight people are so wary of supporting various GLBT community supported measures—we don’t know where it ends. (This is similar to why many people, such as myself, were—and remain—so wary about Obama, his message being not just that he wants to change a few things we can agree are wrong but seemingly everything.) Someone, not just you or the LCR but a more mainstream (i.e., liberal) GLBT organization, needs to step up and tell the American people exactly what the end goal is.
Comment by cme — November 21, 2008 @ 7:28 am - November 21, 2008
Goose and gander. Gay matchmakers should have their socks sued off. But I really doubt anyone much cares.
Comment by heliotrope — November 21, 2008 @ 9:37 am - November 21, 2008
Where does it stop? At what point can the government no longer regulate a private business?
Comment by V the K — November 21, 2008 @ 10:28 am - November 21, 2008
Come on, this is silly. Nobody straight is going to sue gay dating sites because they don’t have anything to offer that mainstream hetero dating sites don’t. The eHarmony thing was all about eHarmony’s unique matchmaking methods that couldnt be found elsewhere. (I’m not writing off the possiblity of anti-Christian sentiment, but that wasn’t the basis of his case.)
Comment by Stopped Clock — November 21, 2008 @ 10:31 am - November 21, 2008
The silence speaks to mathematics and emotions. Most gay folk don’t want to troll heterosexual web dating sites and don’t want gay web dating sites designed for them by heterosexuals under judicial edict. This was about sticking it to The Man and feeling good about it. Gays understand freedom of association, the right to run one’s business, and the long-term implications of this decision for gay businesses. But like a back-alley orgasm, it felt too good to delay gratification and so gay organizations aren’t so much silent as they are smiling. Being in a vast numerical minority, they know that straights have nothing to gain from demanding commensurate websites from gays and that straights have better things to do with their time than stick it to The Queen. The point isn’t to build up a gay infrastructure; the point is to tear down the straight infrastructure. Whether marriage, the Boy Scouts, or eHarmony, the goal isn’t to engage in the hard work of earning society’s respect but seizing its symbols and appropriating them under the pretense of equality.
Comment by Ignatius — November 21, 2008 @ 10:50 am - November 21, 2008
I read some of these stories in the news - Prop 8 demonstrations, eHarmony lawsuit, etc and I feel ashamed to be gay. Then I come to this site, read the blog and posts to feel proud again. Thank you.
Comment by TnnsNE1 — November 21, 2008 @ 11:01 am - November 21, 2008
And the reason a ghey entrepreneur couldn’t have created his own unique matchmaking method is why?
Comment by V the K — November 21, 2008 @ 12:22 pm - November 21, 2008
I think it’s only fair that all matchmaker sites that cater to homosexuals have to now cater to heterosexuals. What’s good for the goose…
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — November 21, 2008 @ 3:24 pm - November 21, 2008
C’mon, V the K, if you insist on using common sense, you will undermine the theme.
Comment by heliotrope — November 21, 2008 @ 3:44 pm - November 21, 2008
#7: It is conceivable that eHarmony had a patent on their process.
Comment by Attmay — November 21, 2008 @ 8:17 pm - November 21, 2008
I cant believe the courts sided with the plaintiff. I was under the impression that business owners are allowed to include their values and morals in the way they operate their business? I guess not. It is NOT right that eHarmony be mandated to go against their beliefs just to be PC and make some people happy.
Bad move! Thats my two sense…
Comment by sTenGuy — November 22, 2008 @ 12:03 am - November 22, 2008
This is precisely the reason why a lot of straight people will not support the gay movement - they always have something to complain about & are always crying discrimination. E-harmony has the right to cater to the people they created their web-site for, which are STRAIGHT people. There are plenty of gay web-sites already in existence. I think THEY should open their doors to everyone as well, or else we should accuse THEM of being discriminatory.
Comment by Liz — November 22, 2008 @ 6:40 pm - November 22, 2008
The eHarmony thing was all about eHarmony’s unique matchmaking methods that couldnt be found elsewhere.
The research that went into devising those methods was done only on heterosexual couples in successful marriages. Do successful long-term gay couples have the same dynamics as successful long-tem straight couples have the same dynamics as successful long-term lesbian couples? I don’t know, but I doubt the plaintiff cares if the answer is “no.”
V the K’s entrepreneur could create a superior product by using research about successful gay and lesbian couples. But it’s faster and cheaper to sue.
Another argument for tort reform.
Comment by HeatherRadish — November 23, 2008 @ 11:26 am - November 23, 2008
Next thing you know, the courts will require the John Birch Society to disseminate the Communist Manifesto. Is this the real reason the fascists want the US government to take an ownership position in every major business via “bailout?” Our government’s interference in the rights of individual citizens and businesses has got to stop. My guess is that the counter lawsuits are not far behind. In the next generation, it will be the white minority that will be suing. Perhaps we should all dress in Maoist blue and start throwing politicians into Boston harbor.
Comment by David Holland — November 28, 2008 @ 9:54 am - November 28, 2008
I have never visited this site before, but I sure will again, because the comments here make sense.
It is refreshing to read opinions that are not expletive laced or intended simply for putting others down.
Discrimination is not a good thing, but neither is forcing persons to offer a service they would rather not offer because of deeply held convictions, and particularly when they are equally good and readily available alternatives to that service.
The approach employed in the lawsuit against eharmony is not the way to win friends nor influence people. We tend to lose respect for those who are always casting themselves as victims.
Those who choose soft targets to attack may gain some temporary satisfaction, but they also run the risk of being regarded by the public as bullies, and of bringing their cause into disrepute.
Comment by steve skeete — December 3, 2008 @ 5:14 pm - December 3, 2008